Teeda Barclay et al. v. iFIT Health – Complete Guide to the Class Action Case!
The case of Teeda Barclay et al. v. iFIT Health has drawn attention across the United States, especially among fitness equipment users. This lawsuit revolves around claims of false advertising and consumer protection violations related to treadmill horsepower ratings. For many buyers, the case highlights how product marketing can influence purchasing decisions—and how legal action can hold corporations accountable.
This guide will walk you through the entire case, including the background, legal claims, procedural history, settlement terms, and how affected consumers can file claims. Whether you’re directly impacted or simply want to understand the significance of this lawsuit, this article provides a comprehensive breakdown.
Case Background
Who Are the Plaintiffs and Defendants?
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Teeda Barclay, Nicole Nordick, and Jay Ovsak, who filed on behalf of themselves and other U.S. consumers. The defendants are ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.—later renamed iFIT Health & Fitness, Inc.—and its popular treadmill brand NordicTrack.
Allegations at the Core
The plaintiffs alleged that NordicTrack treadmills were sold with inflated continuous horsepower (CHP) ratings. These ratings, according to the lawsuit, were not based on real-world household use but rather on lab tests designed to produce higher numbers. Consumers argued that this misrepresentation led them to pay more for treadmills than they would have if the true horsepower was disclosed.
Legal Claims and Foundations
The lawsuit raised multiple legal issues, including:
- False Advertising – misleading horsepower ratings in marketing materials.
- Breach of Warranty – claims that the treadmills failed to meet advertised standards under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state law.
- Consumer Protection Violations – arguments that ICON/iFIT misled buyers in violation of Minnesota’s consumer protection statutes.
These claims combined to form the foundation of the class action lawsuit, which covered a large group of treadmill purchasers between November 22, 2015, and January 15, 2020.
Procedural History
Filing and Early Motions
The lawsuit was filed in 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Initially, ICON/iFIT attempted to dismiss the claims or move the case into arbitration, citing terms of use in treadmill purchase agreements.
Arbitration Rulings
- Barclay and Nordick were compelled to arbitration.
- Ovsak, however, was allowed to remain in court because the arbitration agreement did not clearly apply to his purchase.
Later Court Developments
By 2022, the court allowed the defendants to formally update their corporate name from ICON to iFIT Health & Fitness, Inc. The case continued until September 2024, when a preliminary settlement was reached and approved.
Settlement Overview
The settlement provides relief to consumers who purchased certain NordicTrack and ProForm treadmills between November 2015 and January 2020.
Key Details of the Settlement
| Aspect | Details |
| Settlement Fund | ~$2.4 million |
| Eligibility | U.S. consumers who purchased select NordicTrack or ProForm treadmills (Nov 2015 – Jan 2020) |
| Claim Deadline | June 12, 2025 |
| Final Approval Hearing | August 25, 2025 |
| Claim Benefits | Maintenance kit, treadmill mat, or iFIT membership (varied by subscriber status) |
Claim Options Available
Eligible claimants can choose from:
- Maintenance Kit (valued at $30)
- Treadmill Mat (valued at $69)
- iFIT Subscription Benefits
- New subscribers: up to 3–5 months free (depending on plan)
- Current subscribers: 2–4 months free
- New subscribers: up to 3–5 months free (depending on plan)
This structure gives both new and existing iFIT members a chance to benefit, while also providing tangible accessories to non-members.
Key Legal Issues Explained
Continuous Horsepower Ratings
At the heart of Teeda Barclay et al. v. iFIT Health was whether the horsepower claims reflected real-world treadmill performance. The plaintiffs argued the numbers were exaggerated, giving consumers a false sense of value.
Arbitration’s Role
Arbitration agreements played a key role in the case. Some plaintiffs were forced into arbitration, while others could remain in court, highlighting how fine print in consumer contracts can significantly affect legal outcomes.
Warranty and Consumer Protection
The court also examined whether warranty protections under federal and Minnesota law were violated. Although not all claims succeeded, the settlement shows that the defendants opted for resolution rather than extended litigation.
Impact of the Case
The lawsuit has significant implications:
- For Consumers: It reinforces the importance of transparency in product marketing and the need to read warranty/contract terms carefully.
- For Companies: It shows that misleading advertising can lead to costly class action settlements.
- For the Industry: It may push fitness equipment makers to be more cautious with performance claims.
Timeline At-a-Glance
| Year | Event |
| 2019 | Lawsuit filed in Minnesota federal court |
| 2020 | Arbitration motions partially granted |
| 2022 | Corporate name change to iFIT Health & Fitness |
| 2024 | Preliminary settlement approved |
| 2025 | Claim deadline (June 12) and final hearing (Aug 25) |
FAQs
Do I need proof of purchase to file a claim?
Most claims require either a receipt, product registration, or other documentation, but in some cases, purchase details may be verified through retailer records.
Can I file if I purchased my treadmill secondhand?
No. The settlement only applies to original purchasers of eligible treadmills during the covered period.
What happens if I miss the claim deadline?
If you miss the June 12, 2025 deadline, you will lose eligibility for any settlement benefits.
Will I receive cash compensation?
The settlement primarily provides non-cash benefits (accessories or memberships). Direct cash payouts are not offered under this agreement.
How long will it take to receive benefits after the final approval hearing?
If the court grants final approval in August 2025, benefits are typically distributed within several months, depending on claim volume and administration.
Why is the case named Teeda Barclay et al. v. iFIT Health instead of NordicTrack?
While NordicTrack was the brand involved, the legal entity behind it is ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., which later rebranded as iFIT Health & Fitness, Inc. Lawsuits are filed against the company, not just the brand name.
How large is the settlement compared to the number of treadmill buyers?
The settlement fund is about $2.4 million, which may sound small compared to the number of NordicTrack and ProForm treadmill buyers nationwide. That’s why the settlement offers benefits like equipment and memberships instead of direct cash refunds.
Did iFIT admit wrongdoing in the settlement?
No. Like most class action settlements, iFIT did not admit to any fault or wrongdoing. Instead, they agreed to the settlement to avoid the uncertainty and costs of continuing litigation.
Can international customers join this settlement?
No. The settlement only applies to U.S. residents who purchased eligible treadmills between November 22, 2015, and January 15, 2020. Purchases made outside the United States are excluded.
Will this lawsuit affect future treadmill advertising standards?
Yes, indirectly. While the court did not set new rules, lawsuits like this send a strong message to fitness equipment manufacturers that misleading advertising—especially performance claims like horsepower ratings—can trigger legal and financial consequences.
Conclusion
The case of Teeda Barclay et al. v. iFIT Health serves as a reminder of how consumer rights are protected under U.S. law. The lawsuit shed light on misleading horsepower claims in treadmill marketing and resulted in a settlement valued at millions of dollars.
For consumers, the key takeaway is that reading fine print and holding companies accountable matters. For those who purchased NordicTrack or ProForm treadmills during the eligible period, the settlement offers a chance to claim valuable benefits before the June 2025 deadline.
Read More:
South Country Health Alliance – The Complete Guide!
A Preferred Women s Health Center of Charlotte: Complete Guide
